Bill Sage, Land Management,
explained in Policy 27 of Goal 2, there are eight circumstances in which you
can come to the Board and ask for a conformity determination.† He noted the one used in this application is
27 a.ii.† He said when they come under
that circumstance, they are saying that in 1984 when the parcel was first
zoned, there were legal lots within the subject area that werenít identified at
the time by staff.† He said the policy
stated had they been identified, it may have had some impact on what they did
with the zoning.† He said if that case
can be met, they are shifted in the policy to Goal 4, Policy 15, which are the
characteristics of determining how a parcel should be an F1 or F2
designation.† He indicated that the
staff report went through a process of asking specific questions and putting
findings that came out of the deliberations at the Planning Commission and made
conclusions on each of those steps. †He
said under Goal a. ii, the Board has to decide whether a legal lot is
there.† He recalled the County did legal
lot verifications and found there was a legal lot for the 34-acre piece in
1984.† He recalled in the public hearing
that took place before the Planning Commission on August 3, there was an issue
raised that during the time period between 1983 and 1986, Lane County had
definitions of legal lot in their Lane Code 13 and 16 that says on January 1 of
every calendar year, any parcels where there is contiguous ownership, creating
a tract, becomes one legal lot.† Lane
County followed what was happening with the legislature and the 1985
Legislature passed amendments to ORS 192 that clarified all that.† He added that the County came back in 1986
and adopted three ordinances. He explained that one amended Chapter 13, one
amended Chapter 16 and one took the errors and omissions policy and extended it
for another three years to clear it up.†
He indicated when the Planning Commission met, they adopted an interpretation
of what a legal lot was between 1983 and 1986 and they stated in that
determination that because of all the factors at the state and local level,
they were interpreting that any legal lot that was there in 1984 was a discrete
legal lot and it hadnít lost its status as a lot and wasnít merged then or
now.††

Sage said when the Board
deliberates on this, they will have to determine if there was a legal lot.† He added if the Board agrees with the
Planning Commissionís recommendation, they will need to adopt their
interpretation that in 1984 a legal lot existed and it wasnít merged.†† He indicated there were findings in the
board order that the Board adopted as its interpretation.†

Sage explained the Planning
Commission unanimously made a recommendation that the Board not only adopts
that interpretation, but also approve the request for rezoning the 34 acres
from F1 to F2.

Sage noted since the Board
received the packet, one item came in as an addendum to the record on March 28,
from Jim Just from Goal 1 Coalition.

Morrison recalled that this is
a de novo hearing and she asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

There were no ex-parte
contacts.

Jim Mann, representing Earl
Everett, property owner, indicated they have an application for a plan amendment
and zone change for 34 acres.† He said
they had a hearing with the Planning Commission and they reviewed it and
recommended approval.† He said that
staff has developed findings and they recommended the Board adopt the findings
in support of the proposed change.† He
indicated this is the first hearing under this application process. . With
regard to the zone change from F1 to F2, at the time they applied for this zone
change, since Lane County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1984, there were
only three applications for zone changes from F1 to F2.† He said they all went to the Lane County
hearingís official.†

With regard to changing the
zoning from F1 to F2, Mann said there would be a wide spectrum of the kinds of
applications they will get under the requirements.† He said some would be obvious because of the condition of the
properties.† He said this seems like it
is an F-2.†

Mann distributed information
from the Planning Commission.† He noted
at the Planning Commission hearing there was a concern raised by the opposition
that they hadnít adequately shown that some of the existing development in the
area actually existed in 1984, even though they had aerial photos and other
information.† He submitted additional
information.† He recalled in 1982 there
was an existing dwelling on the property that burned down.† He submitted a land use permit that was
approved in 1983 for a replacement dwelling.†
He noted at the time Lane County was doing the zoning in 1984, it would
have been an active permit.†

Dwyer asked if someone would
have bought the land in 1984, before the adoption of the code or zoning, what
could they be expected to be able to do for that piece of property.†

Mann indicated that the
practice at the time was that the permit was valid for the life of the permit,
and was not negated by the adoption of the new zoning.

Mann said the first submittal
was the Lane County tax assessment improvement appraisal with the church that
is contiguous on the south end of the property.† He noted the information indicated that the church had a year
built date of 1945.† He explained there
was a dwelling on tax lot 400 with a year built date of 1971.† He said there is a note out of the Lane
County permit records that on map 21-01-30, tax lot 1602, there was an existing
mobile home with the year built date of 1963.†
He included a copy of Lane Countyís Goal 2 Policy 17 into the record
with the approved replacement dwelling for the subject policy.† He indicated that Policy 17 was numbered
different in 1984, but the policy said to the extent possible, Lane County and
planning and zoning would recognize existing approved permits.† He said while looking at Policy 17 and the
zoning policy for F1 and F2, they have to consider other policies that give
direction for F1 and F2 zoning.

Mann said when they are looking
at uses on adjacent property; there is an industrial use to the south that is
in the M3 zone.† He explained in the
submittal the Board received from Goal 1 Coalition, it indicates the uses allowed
by the forest goal and is therefore forest use.† He said following that line of logic it discounts the use.† He referred to a quote out of the OAR that
they referred to that said it is a facility where finite processing of forest
products is allowed by the forest goal, but Lane Code Chapter 16.090, a
permanent processing facility is restricted to processing products raised on
the tract where it is located.† He said
if there was an existing facility there that had the broad ability to process
forest products (and they took it), where it was zoned before industrial and
not zone it industrial, the use is limited.†
He said when Lane County zoned it in 1984, that was the appropriate
thing to do.†

Mann indicated there was
another comment in the objections that there is a mobile home on the industrial
zoned property and the commentator said it is in the industrial zone as an
accessory industrial use, not a mobile home, and calling it an accessory
industrial use without having any facts to do that is inappropriate.

Mann explained in looking at
the F1, F2 criteria, he believed ownership is developed with residences on
non-forest uses.† He said if they
consider the fact that this property had a dwelling on it until 1982, they had
an active land use permit with replacement rights in 1984.† He said the application met the
requirement.† He said if they say it is
predominantly ownership of 80 acres or less in size and looking at the property
involved, it might not qualify because of the purpose.† He said it would qualify as ownership that
is generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 80 acres. He explained
there is a constraint that has been put on the application and the Planning
Commission that when they are looking at the adjacent parcel, you canít go on
beyond the adjacent property. He said in looking at the adjacent developed and
committed lands and consider the character of them, you look at what they are
adjacent to. He said it makes a difference if they are isolated developed and
committed parcels or if they are adjacent to large unincorporated communities.

Dwyer asked if there is a road
there, if it made it contiguous.

Mann said that a road does not
make them contiguous.† He said they look
at homes that are contiguous and find out what they are contiguous to.† He said that with F1 and F2, they have to
look at each criteria so one might carry more weight than the other.

Laurie Segel, 1000
Friends of Oregon, stated their concern with the application is with the
application of the provision.† She said
the inquiry on the adjoining parcels should be based on ownership, not
parcelization.† She said what has been
misrepresented is that the inquiry on errors and omissions needs to be based on
historical conditions.† She said the
fact of whether or not an error or omission was made in zoning couldnít be
based on what is on the ground.† She
added it had to be based upon what was happening in 1984 when the zoning
applied.

Dwyer said if that was the
case, the legal record showed there was a house there in 1983.

Segel commented that they have
to look at ownership, not parcelization and make sure the condition area is
okay.† She was concerned about them
because the same criteria is being used in evaluating the application and those
provisions are not misinterpreted.† She
said she wasnít speaking in opposition of this application; she was speaking to
the correct implementation of the provisions for Goal 2, Policy 27 and for Goal
4, Policy 16.†

Sage indicated the Planning
Commission made findings on each of the characteristics of what F1 and F2
parcels are compromised of and they made conclusions on each of the four and
they made a conclusion and supported the application for approval.

Dwyer asked if they dealt with
parcelization versus ownership.

Sage said they discussed it but
didnít get to a point of making an interpretation.† He said they can discuss things and make a recommendation and
have an opinion, but only the Board could interpret the policy.† He said the Board could agree with the
hearings official or choose to deal with the interpretation separately and
change it.†

Mann indicated that Lauri Segel
stated in her presentation that the application had been misrepresented and it
must be based on historical information showing what had happened in 1984.† He took issue with that.† He stated they had presented the kind of
historical information that was needed.

Sorenson noted there was a
dwelling on the property in 1984.† He
asked if that decided the case.

Sage responded that the fact
there was a dwelling and residential development covered the first
characteristic of the subject property, and in 1984 they zoned some F1
properties that had ownership on them, which were large and isolated.† He noted in this case they were looking at
development on one parcel that was subject to this decision that is smaller and
below the threshold of 80 acres.

There being no one else signed
up to speak, Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing.

Dwyer asked what the Planning Commissionís
recommendation was.

Sage indicated their
recommendation for the Board was to consider approving this based on findings
and conclusions.

MOTION: to close the
record and deliberate.

Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Stewart commented that there
was a legal lot there at the time.† He
didnít think this should be rolled into a timber F1 zone.† He believed this property met the
characteristics to qualify for F2 zoning.

Assistant County Counsel
Stephen Vorhes stated that given the testimony and evidence that was submitted
today, there was enough evidence to address the issue.† He thought it might be appropriate to revise
the findings to address that.† He said
if they are taking action to approve, he recommended that be a tentative action
and set a third reading and final action at a time in the future that would
allow for a revision of the findings that would address the issue as it was
developed.

VOTE: 5-0.

MOTION: to tentatively
approve Ordinance PA 1211 pending the submission of more findings and
support through the application, and approve a Second Reading and setting a
Third Reading and Deliberation on April 20, 2005.

Sage reported the Board received
the first agenda cover memo on February 28 and since that time they had
received three separate supplementals.†
He recalled on March 24 he received from the applicant an executive
summary of the presentation they put into the original application and more
information has come into the record since that time.† He said on March 28 the Board received a second addendum to Jim
Just and the Goal 1 Coalition. He noted in this case, the applicant chose to
make an application under two of the circumstances of the eight that are in
Goal 2, Policy 27.† He said that was the
policy that dealt with legal lots.† He
added they also made an application at the same time to be considered under
Policy 27 a.ii, where there was a correction of an inconsistency between the
text of an order or ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners and an
official plan in the zoning diagram.† He
noted in this case he presented them as Option 1 and Option 2 and they dealt
with findings and conclusions.† He said
he had made an error in the processing of the Planning Commission.† He said when he was directing the Planning
Commission on how to proceed with this application, he misread or made a
literal translation of what the applicant put in their final rebuttal.† He read that to say that they wouldnít
withdraw the consideration under the policy for legal lot parcelization and
rely on the errors and inconsistencies between the text and the map.† He said the Planning Commission only made
recommendation and conclusions based on one of the two policies.† He stated after the deliberation they asked
for the opportunity to come back to review that criteria and get a second
opinion.† He said at that time the
Planning Commission thought they had been influenced by what he had given as
direction and the way it was handled, and it was better to come to the Board
with a recommendation of a non-decision and have the Board make the
determination based on the complete record.

Sage said if they go to the
inconsistency between a map and a text, they have to go back to the same
process in 1984 and look at what the Board did, to see if it was meant to be
drawn on a map the way it was, or if the text they referred to needed to have
something in it.† He said the Board
needs to go back and apply the Goal 4 Policy 15 to both of the circumstances,
to determine if the intent of the zoning was F1 or F2 and the inconsistencies
between the map and text.† He said they
have to make two decisions on Policy 27 a.ii, legal lot parcelization and one
on Policy 27 a.vii, using consistencies.†
He said if both are denied, then the application would not go
forward.† He said if they choose to
approve one of them,† then the
application could prevail.

Dwyer asked how the Planning
Commission dealt with it.

Sage responded that they were
confused.† He noted there were times in
the discussion where they were making cases and trying to point out his
error.† He said they made the process
and connection between Goal 4 and Policy 15.†
He said they made one recommendation, on the consistency of the map and
the text.† He said their recommendation
was to deny the application.

Sage said under Option 1, the
Board could agree that the map was the one that prevailed at the time,
indicating what were the boundaries of the F1 zone, and that is what the Board
would rely on.† He added the second
option would affect the text itself because it was laid out as part of the
ordinance.† He said it was the result of
the LCDCís remand to Lane County.† He
said in February 1984, they rezoned properties in response to some of those
concerns and in September 1984, they changed the zoning and that was when the
map change occurred.† He noted it was a
text discrepancy.

Dwyer asked if the map came
first.

Sage indicated they both came
together.† He explained when Ordinance
8-84 was adopted in February, it went up to LCDC for rezoning the whole
County.† He said on the first order it
was just on the map.† He said when they
adopted Ordinance 8-91, it made the amendment of Ordinance 8-84
maps.† He said they marked any changes
they made then and because they marked on top of maps, they said in the
ordinance for any further delineation affected by the zoning from F1 to F1, you
go to Exhibit C.

Morrison opened the Public
Hearing.

Al Cooper, Eugene,
Applicantís Agent, said he was impressed with Sageís taking some of the
responsibility for what happened at the Planning Commission level.† He said they applied for the application
under the conformity determination process that was a two-step process. He
indicated that the first step asked if something happened in 1984 that merits
re-examination now.† He added there are
eight categories and they applied under two of them.† He said that one of them was a failure of the maps to display
actual existing legal lots and the other was the inconsistency between the text
of the ordinance that creates the zoning and the maps.† He said during the deliberation the question
about the ability to identify legal lots was complicated.† He added in their final rebuttal they could
qualify under any one or more of the eight categories.† He said if the first one is too confusing or
they didnít agree with staffís research, they qualified under the second
step.† Cooper stated Sage said that
someone got misconstrued, that they applied under one criteria and changed and
applied under something else.† He said
they were accused of bait and switch and duping the Planning Commission.† He said they applied and discussed both
alternatives.† He said once the case
qualifies and the staff reports they qualify under both criteria, then they
have one issue.† He said the question is
whether the property should be restored to its original F2 or left in F1.† He explained to reach that determination
they apply the criteria that are found in the Rural Comprehensive Plan Goal 4,
Policy 15 and there is criteria for zone change found in Lane Code Chapter
16.† He said as Jim Mann mentioned,
there had been three previous F1, F2 case hearings by the hearings official.† He said the hearings official said this
process requires that the original process of designation be re-visited to see
if the factors that originally supported F1 have changed to such an extent that
F2 is now justified.† He explained the
staff report presented to the Board when they were adopting the conformity
determination process contained the statement that this process is a pact
between a private property owner and the County to acknowledge existing
circumstances and provide relief.††

Cooper noted in this matter
what counts is ownership, not necessarily parcelization in 1984.† He said in response to comments to LCDC, an
ordinance was passed in which there was a map that showed the entire area as
F1.† He indicated the text of the
ordinance said they were rezoning property as shown on the map and then further
delineated on the list of tax lots.† He
said they were not using the inconsistency to decide what the zoning ought to
be.† He said the inconsistency is to get
to the case on the merits.

Cooper indicated within a mile
from their property there are 263 parcels of less than 10 acres.† He said out of 263 parcels there are many
owners.† He added on their property is
four separate ownerships.† He explained
the F2 zoning depends on small parcelization, dwellings and things to enforce
in the F1 area.††

Sage recalled when the County
reviewed this, there was one tax lot and four legal lots within the triangle:
one was 69 acres, one was 27 acres, one was 78 acres and one was 26 acres.† He said the property line adjustment of the
118 acres to the south was consolidated and it left 83 acres.† He noted in 2000 Lane County did four legal
lot verifications and found that those four acreages existed and were
legal.† He added in January 2003, the
property line adjustment that included the 118 acres re-configured the four
lots that were left within the 83 acres and resulted in parcels that were 15.69
acres, 23.19 acres, 26.1 acres and 18.69 acres.

Cooper commented that
regardless whether the County could or could not have recognized legal lots, he
thought this case qualified under the category of inconsistency between the map
and the text.† He noted the criteria
were created when Lane County was zoning the entire county.† He said they donít work as well† as when they go small area by small
area.† He explained the way the criteria
are applied is to go through each one and they will go toward F1 or F2 and
whichever one predominates, directs toward that zoning.† He noted that the staff report correctly
documented that in the area there are 32 homes and the County shop, but those
are zoned F1.

With regard to Lane Code
Chapter 16.252 (2) criteria that apply to all zone changes, Cooper asked if the
zone conforms to the physical characteristics of the property and if it was in
the public interest.† He said as to the
physical characteristics they talked about, scientists evaluated the property
with expertise in forestry.† He added
because of the slightly lower quality of soils and the surrounding property,
the property would not be of interest to a large industrial timber manufacturer,
but would be of interest to small woodlands.

Cooper indicated they received
a 15-page letter of objection.† He said
the letter contained 11 errors.† He
requested that the record stay open so he could have a written report on those.

Marvin Zettle, Dexter,
said he is a neighbor of Merle Brown.†
He said he moved back to the area because of the horseback riding.† He said the property they are talking about
is where the horseback riding trails are.†
He asked what would happen with those trails if the land were
developed.† He read a letter into the
record from Merle Brown.

Laurie Segel, Eugene,
stated she was speaking on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon.† She said there was a public hearing at the
Planning Commission and at deliberations staff brought forward a policy
amendment for Goal 2 Policy 27.† She
said what didnít make sense was for the Planning Commission to be considering
policy amendments that hadnít gone forward to a public hearing that would be
used to help deliberate on the two judicial applications before them.† She said the policy amendments were used to
help the Planning Commission deliberate.†
She contacted staff following that and said that procedurally that was
incorrect.† She noted that staff didnít
agree with that and went back to the Planning Commission with the policy
amendment.

Dwyer asked if this concept
raised any issues.

Stephen Vorhes, Assistant
County Counsel, said it didnít cause concern because he wasnít at the Planning
Commission meeting.† He said the Board
has a recommendation in front of them and what they are considering is an
application under the old policy that is in effect that governs the Boardís
determination and the Planning Commissionís ultimate recommendation on the
Policy 27 language.

Sage noted in Attachment C to
the Agenda Cover Memo, there is a memo from staff to the Planning Commission
that was written on October 1.† He said
the deliberations were October 5.† He
explained that it took them about two months to find the documents to address the
issue that legal lots emerged in 1983 to 1986, lost their status on January 1
of every year and therefore couldnít be considered under any of the policies
today as they were written in Goal 2, Policy 27 2.a.ii.† He added the† Planning Commission adopted two motions that night: a motion of
recommendation to interpret that policy that is a finding that they used a
common sense interpretation from 1983 to 1986, and to look at legal lots that
were verified as being there in 1984 as being legal lots.† He noted that was for the Kronberger
application and the Everett application, as those legal lots had been
identified† legal lots for
consideration.† He said they could go to
Goal 4, Policy 15 to consider rezoning that land.† He said they made a second motion to take the policy information
to the Board to craft a change in Policy 27 2.i to eliminate the verbiage about
legal lots that existed, parcelization patterns and put that policy in place so
it only addressed the characteristics of Goal 4, Policy 15.† He said the Planning Commission knew that
these two applications would come to the Board under the old policies, that the
interpretations the Board adopted was a recommendation as common sense and the
other issue about changing the policy would come under a separate ordinance,
which it did.† He said they went back in
December and the Planning Commission reviewed that and adopted another
recommendation.† He said they brought
the policy change to the Board two months ago and the Board adopted and changed
Policy 27 2.a to only deal with Goal 4, Policy 15 characteristics.† He said the Planning Commission was aware of
the two motions they made and dealt with two applications under one
interpretation that they wanted the Board to adopt and to make a clearer motion
to bring a policy change, which the Board did.

Segel commented that two
provisions of the Rural Comp Plan, Goal 2, Policy 27. a. had been identified as
applicable criteria.† She said with Goal
4, Policy 15, the analysis of appropriate zoning for F1 or F2 is relevant to
the application of Policy 27 a. ii.† She
thought there was an incorrect application of Policy 27 in that the question
stated is whether the subject property now more closely resembles F1 or F2
characteristics.† She said the correct
inquiry is whether the subject property in 1984 had the characteristics more
closely resembling F1 or F2, when zoning was applied.† She added the application position is that current conditions are
relevant to the required inquiry and it appears that staff accepted the
position.† She said the purpose of
Policy 27 is to correct identified errors or omissions resulting from the
official plannerís zoning plot, not recognizing lawfully existing in terms of
zoning uses, or from inconsistencies between the official plan and the zoning
plot.† She said that Policy 27 does not
and should not address changes in circumstances of failure to anticipate later
unforeseen changes, and circumstances or conditions simply cannot be considered
an error or omission.† She said the
question of whether one or four legal lots exist is not determinative because
the required inquiry of ownership is not legal lots.† She added even if the subject property was comprised of four
units of land rather than one in 1984, that fact is not relevant to the inquiry
required of Goal 4, Policy 15.† She said
that policy lists the factors.† She said
even if four units of land were created as of 1917, it appeared that those
units of land were subsequently consolidated and that the subject property
constituted a single tract in 1983/1984.†
She said the subject property was under one larger ownership at the time
the rules applied in 1984.† She said
they found parcelization was not relevant and could not have dictated that the
subject land be zoned F2 rather than F1 and based on these points within the
Goal 1 Coalition written comments, she said this application should not be
approved.

Gwen Farnsworth, said
she was a neighbor.† She indicated what
Jim Just submitted had errors in the numbers of acreage but the facts were
correct.† She said there is no access to
the parcels from across the railroad tracks.†
She thought whatever happened on Dexter Highway is not relevant to this
application because there is only one access to the property, off of
Rattlesnake Road.† She entered letters
into the record from concerned neighbors.†
She passed around pictures of the property and adjacent areas.† She commented that Kronberger did not have
anything taken away from him, he bought the property with the intent of
changing the zoning to make a profit on it.†
She added the property was managed as a timber property until he bought
it.

Green asked why Farnsworth
objected to the application.

Farnsworth replied that along
with the application, Kronberger said if he gets the F2 zoning, he would put a
house on each lot.† She said the
property is growing trees and she didnít want to see development on it.

Sage submitted new letters into
the record.

Dwyer asked when the
Kronbergers purchased the property.

Kronberger stated he purchased the
property six years ago.

Cooper requested that the
record be left open to respond to new information submitted.† He said that all of the comments about the
County could or could not have identified legal lots; they were operating under
the old policy.† He said they applied
under two categories.† He commented that
conformity determination is a two-step process that any one of the eight
criteria makes you eligible for further consideration.† He said once they are eligible, the question
is what is the correct zoning, F1 or F2, and to determine that they use the
criteria in Goal 4, Policy 27 and the rezone criteria in Lane Code Chapter
16.† He said it is not a minor amendment
that happens when they change the Comprehensive Plan.† He said the Comprehensive Plan designation calls it forestland
and that is not being changed.† He said
it is incorrect that Kronberger acquired property from Mr. Brown and then
quitclaimed it back.† He said it was a
property line adjustment process.† He
said there were four legal lots on the Kronberger property next to the Brown
property. He added the Brown property line was dropped down and the bottom 112
acres were added and no new parcels were created.† With regards to the property to the north, he said that any
dwelling in an F2 zone is termed a forest related dwelling and any property
over 10 acres has to have a stocking survey.†
He said they found out that 13 Ĺ acres of the property is under timber
production and 2 Ĺ acres to a dwelling and it was stocked at 267 Douglas Fir
per acre.† He said it is under forest
management.† He added that some of the
clearing that was referred to was a County requirement of a fire protection
zone.

Green asked which concerns of
the criteria they needed to deliberate on.

Cooper said they could ignore
the discussion about the legal lot and they could reach the merits under the
map text inconsistency.

Morrison closed the Public
Hearing.† She said they would leave the
record open to allow comment on information they received today and to give
them an opportunity to review the material.

Morrison re-opened the Public
Hearing.

Dwyer asked if the property was
purchased six years ago with one unit.†
He asked if the sale accomplished one unit where he encompassed four
lots.

Cooper said they County said
they did a legal lot verification.

Dwyer asked if the purchase
price was reflected as a one-unit sale or four lots.

Kronberger said the application
is to look back to see if the County made a mistake on the zoning.† He believed they did.† He said the lots they bought were legal lots
and were small tax lots and zoned F2.

Dwyer asked if he bought the
property for forest management.

Kronberger indicated that he
bought the property as an investment for his family.† He said they bought eight to ten legal lots.

Morrison closed the Public
Hearing.

MOTION:† to move to keep the record open until April
13 and approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading on May 4 for Ordinance
PA 1211.

Sage explained when they were
in the McKenzie Watershed and they were doing periodic review, they had the
opportunity to take some of the old paper maps and make new maps. He said they
needed to rezone those boundaries and designations inside the watersheds.† He said there were plan and zoning maps that
were changed and Walterville was one of the communities where they didnít do
any changes.† He said in the process,
the plan map was drawn correctly. He added when they transferred over the
zoning map, there was one triangular piece south of the highway under the RR5
zoning and they didnít catch it until after the Board had already adopted it
six months ago.† He said they now need
to change the zoning map.

Morrison opened the Public
Hearing.† There being no one signed up
to speak she closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION:† to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1213

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.

d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 05-3-30-16/In
the Matter of Approving a Design Concept for the Realignment of Airport Road,
the intersection of Airport Road and Greenhill Road, and short sections of
Greenhill Road both north and south of Airport Road, in the Vicinity of the
Eugene Airport and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Eugene for the realignment
project.

Tom Stinchfield, Public Works,
asked the Board to consider a board order that would approve a design concept
for the realignment of Airport Road.† He
added the order would also authorize the County Administrator to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with the City of Eugene regarding the project.† He noted this was a County road section that
serves the Eugene Airport.† He said the
easterly end of Airport Road had been transferred to the City of Eugene and the
westerly part remains outside of the City, outside of urban growth boundary and
is a County road.†† He indicated the
section of road they are talking about realigning is in the County section west
of the City section.

Stinchfield recalled the
Airport Master Plan Update was approved in April 2000 and it included the
proposal to close the diagonal runway that crosses the main runway.† He said the plan calls for construction of a
second parallel runway to the east of Greenhill Road and the runway protection
for the southern end of the runway is in conflict with where Airport Road
currently exists.† He said as part of
the Airport Master Plan, Greenhill Road running by the airport entrance was
vacated as a County road that allowed the airport to have operations that would
go between the two runways without crossing a public road.†

Stinchfield explained after the
Airport Master Plan Update was approved, Greenhill Road that ran in front of
the airport entrance was re-located to the easterly edge of the runway
area.† He said it was built in 2000 with
FAA grants and the County pushed for the road to keep adequate circulation
around the airport.† He said the second
runway is under construction and will be completed in 2006.† He indicated the City of Eugeneís plan is to
construct the Airport Road realignment project in 2006 with the FAA grant.† He said the estimated cost is $2,400,000
with a five percent airport matching fund requirement He noted that Greenhill
Road (which they constructed in 2000) would be extended to the south and there
would be a cost.† He added the abandoned
section of Airport Road on the east end is planned to be converted to a local
road to provide access for the homes along there.† He indicated that the section between Airport and Greenhill would
have to be redone.

Stinchfield indicated that
Alternative One that is supported by County and City staff is a conventional
ďTĒ design that allows free flow into the airport.† He noted Alternative Two is a single lane roundabout.† He said the City hired a consulting firm to
do a traffic study to study the movement of traffic into the airport and to
study the performance of the roadway into the future.† He said the conclusion is either option will function meeting
County performance standards through 2025 and there is no congestion problem
with either design.† He said their
recommendation is Alternative One.† He
said that is about $80,000 more expensive than the roundabout because there is
more turn lane construction.††

Sorenson asked what was needed
from the Board.

Stinchfield explained the board
order as it is drafted for the design concept would implement selecting
Alternative One with the conventional intersection design and the effect of the
order would be to move the project forward, that would authorize the County
Administrator to enter into an agreement with the City to proceed with the
project.† He noted this project was
unusual because it was City funded and the concept of moving a road like this
had been previously approved in the Airport Master Plan and as part of the Comp
Plan.† He said they would bring the
concept to the Board.† He said the Board
has to decide if this is the proposal to go forward.

Commissioner Morrison opened
the Public Hearing.

Richard Null, Eugene, represented
the owners of the parcel, tax lot 900. He asked if the map represents what is
proposed and wonít infringe on their property.

David Lintz, Mill City,
stated the notice was dated March 18 and he received it March 22.† He sent a copy to his lawyer and he didnít
open the letter until this morning.† He
wanted the Board to continue this until April 20 so he could consult his
experts to see if he has a concern.† He
thought the design concept was vague.†
He said there is no driveway for him and he has 85 acres left and he
didnít know how he would get to his land.

Stinchfield said there would be
no problem with the County if the City wanted to move this item.† He noted what they donít have with the
design concept would be direction from staff to acquire properties.† He said the way this is set up with the IGA
and design concept, the City will do the acquisition of land and the County is
not directly involved. He said they would eventually formalize the driveway for
Lintzí property with their normal driveway permit process.

Terry Higgins, City of Eugene,
recalled that last fall the City sent out notification about the change.† He indicated he had a conversation with Mr.
Lintz about his access to the property.†
He said the criteria includes maintaining a 50-mile-per-hour speed zone
through the curves.† He said they are
making their best attempt to avoid the ODF & W property containing
wetlands.† He explained that those are
the tightest curves they can get in.

Dwyer wanted to roll this until
April 20.

Morrison agreed to roll this
but said there were conversations that took place last fall with regard to
counsel.† She wanted to know if Lane
County owned any of the parcels.†

Sorenson asked why they would
spend money for a traffic light when they could go ahead with a roundabout.

Stinchfield said the traffic
study found that three-quarters of the traffic entering the airport is using
Airport Road, not Greenhill Road.† He
indicated Alternative 1 has the advantage of bringing that traffic into the
airport directly; they donít have to turn through a roundabout.† He said the traffic study found that the
traffic signal warrant criteria are not met and are not needed for the
Alternative 1 design.† He added that
Alternative 1 has the advantage of serving the traffic directly.† He said that Lane County supports the City
with a 50-mile-per-hour design.

MOTION:† to move to roll this item to April 20 to
provide other information and to give Lentz time to meet with his attorney.

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Dwyer wanted to leave the
record open until April 20.

VOTE: 5-0.†

18. COMMISSIONERS'
ANNOUNCEMENTS

Green and Morrison will be attending
the River Road Santa Clara meeting of the Transition Manager process.† Green reminded people about earned income credit.

Morrison indicated she would be
attending a wastewater management meeting for Stewart.† She asked if she could be there as a proxy
for Stewart.† There was consensus for
her to be a proxy.

19. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

None.

20. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison
adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.